Prosecution Cannot Hijack The Court
Retrial of Case on Ground of Non Service of Summons to Witnesses—Informant lodged an FIR that the accused persons came armed with various weapons, took away
her husband, the deceased—After the accused persons were sent up for trial, charges were framed—Trial
Judge, that is, Additional Session Judge, passed orders to issue summons to the witnesses and they were issued. Thereafter the learned trial Judge issued bailable as well
as non-bailable warrants against the informant. The learned trial Judge on various occasions recorded that witnesses were not present and ultimately vide order
directed the matter to be posted for orders Under Section 232 Code of Criminal Procedure and on the dated fixed recorded the judgment of acquittal.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the informant preferred criminal revision. The learned Single Judge upon perusal of the record found that there was no
service report/execution of warrant of arrest against the informant and there was also no service report on other witnesses or bailable or non-bailable warrants issued against the witnesses were executed. The High Court also took note of the fact that after the accused persons were examined Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, case was adjourned for evidence of the defence and hearing and finally the matter was taken up for consideration Under Section 232 Code of Criminal Procedure and judgment was passed acquitting the accused persons. It has been clearly stated by the High Court that the Superintendent of Police had not taken steps to produce the evidence and the learned trial Judge had not taken effective steps for production of witnesses and tried to conclude the trial without being alive to the duties of the trial court.
The learned Single Judge has opined there has been no fair trial and accordingly remanded the matter for retrial by the trial court.
High Court upon perusal of the record has come to hold that notices were not served on the witnesses. The agonised widow of deceased was compelled to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court against the judgment of acquittal as the trial was closed after examining a formal witness. The order passed by the High Court by no stretch of imagination can be regarded as faulty. That being the position, we have no spec of doubt in our mind that the whole trial is nothing, but comparable to an experimentation conducted by a child in a laboratory. It is neither permissible nor allowable. Therefore, unhesitatingly affirm the order passed by the High Court as we treat the view expressed by it as unexceptionable, for by its order it has annulled an order which was replete with glaring defects that had led to miscarriage of justice.
Consequently, the appeal, being sans merit, stands dismissed.